One thing is clear: that if independence goes ahead, it’s the end of devolution. All those who want to see not only the status quo but further devolution from the United Kingdom to Scotland must vote to stay within the United Kingdom.

Cameron said that if Scotland voted to stay in the UK, further devolution would be possible. Salmond said he thought the independence campaign would win. “I believe we’ll win it by setting out a positive vision for a better future for our country economically and also, crucially, socially,” he said.

•Theresa May, the home secretary, has told MPs that the government is minded to pull out of around 130 EU justice and home affairs measures. In a Commons statement, she said that under the Lisbon treaty the government had to decide by 2014 whether to keep them all to opt out of them all.

The UK cannot pick and choose the measures from which we wish to opt out. We can only opt out en masse and then seek to rejoin individual measures. The government’s current thinking is that we will opt out of all pre-Lisbon police and criminal justice matters, and then negotiate with the commission and other member states to opt back into those individual measures that it is in our national interest to rejoin.

Yvette Cooper, the shadow home secretary, said that May’s position was “completely confused” because she could not say what measures the government would opt back into.

The home secretary said she wants to opt out of some things, but then maybe she might actually opt back in to all of it all over again. Out and in and in and out. It’s like the government is playing a giant game of hokey cokey and yet the fight against crime is at stake.

Keith Vaz, the Labour chair of the home affairs committee, said May was right about there being problems with the European arrest warrant. But Nigel Farage, the Ukip leader, said that May was “the modern day Grand Old Duke of York” and that her statement was unlikely to achieve anything. “She says she wants to opt out and then opt in again,” Farage said. “I suspect nothing of substance will actually be achieved.” As Alan Travis writes in a Guardian analysis, a Cambridge University study has concluded that if Britain does opt out of 130 EU justice measures, it will be left with little option but to ask the EU for permission to opt straight back into nearly all the measures involved. In an article for PoliticsHome, Timothy Kirkhope, the Conservative justice spokesman in the European parliament, said that using the opt out to attack Britain’s EU partners would amount to “betraying our country’s best interests.”

• David Lidington, the Europe minister, has said that the decision by the Spanish to impose checks leading to delays of up to six hours at the Spain/Gibraltar borde was “unacceptable”. He was answering an urgent question on the matter in the Commons.

This current disruption comes at a time when tensions between Gibraltar and Spain have increased because of a dispute over Spanish fishing rights in British Gibraltar territorial waters. The view of many in Gibraltar is that the delays are an attempt to increase pressure on Gibraltar to resolve that fishing dispute. The Government’s position is that these delays are unacceptable and have no place at a border between EU partners.

That's all from me for today.

Thanks for the comments.

Updated at 5.21pm BST

4.36pm BST

Theresa May, the home secretary, making a statement about EU justice powers. Photograph: BBC Parliament

Updated at 4.38pm BST

4.35pm BST

Sir Roger Gale, a Conservative, asks if MPs will be given a vote before the government decides to opt in to some of these measures again.

May says the government will consult MPs about this. MPs will be given a vote.

4.33pm BST

Denis MacShane, the Labour former Europe minister, says he has never heard a statement so devoid of content. He says May is opting in to rampant Europhobia.

4.33pm BST

Alan Johnson, the Labour former home secretary, says Britain does not have to opt out of the European arrest warrant if it wants change because the workings of the European arrest warrant are being reformed.

He says the Scott Baker report on extradition recommended keeping the European arrest warrant.

Updated at 4.39pm BST

4.29pm BST

May says Labour has no credibility on European issues. It wanted to sign up to a European constitution.

May says Labour negotiated the opt out. If they thought it was going to cause a problem, why did they negotiate it?

And, if there are financial penalties, that's because they were included in the opt-out Labour signed, May says.

May says Labour has already accepted that there should be changes to the European arrest warrant.

4.26pm BST

Yvette Cooper, the shadow home secretary, says she has never been asked to respond to a statement without being shown it first.

She says the government's position is chaotic. Discussions are ongoing, apparently. May wants to opt out of provisions. But then she wants to opt back in to some of them. Just as Michael Gove wants to come out of the EU, while David Cameron doesn't. It's a form of "hokey-cokey", she says. And it does not help the fight against crime.

She says the European arrest warrant has been useful. Suspected foreign criminals should be sent back home to face justice, she says. But May is suggesting that Britain may opt out of the European arrest warrant.

What about minimum standards in terrorist operations?

And what will be put in place of these provisions in the meantime?

Cooper says there is no guarantee that Britain will be allowed to opt back in to provisions. Denmark has had about 50% of its requests to opt back in turned down.

She also says there could be a financial penalty for opting out.

May should decide what her policy is before announcing it, Cooper says.

Updated at 4.29pm BST

4.22pm BST

This is from Gawain Towler, the Ukip press officer.

Gawain Towler (@GawainTowler)

Mays Opt out statement empty, we will opt out, but we will opt in to some, dunno which, and that decision to be made in discussion with EU

Johnson is right to say checks are important, Miller says. But Savile had no criminal convictions.

Updated at 4.26pm BST

3.59pm BST

John Whittingdale, the chair of the culture committee, says the director general of the BBC has offered to appear before his committee next week to discuss this.

3.58pm BST

Miller says Harman is right to say there must be no complacency.

No stone should be left unturned, she says.

3.57pm BST

Harriet Harman, the shadow culture secretary, says everyone has been sickened by Savile's actions. And people are particularly horrified that they happened at the BBC, an institution known as "Auntie" because it is loved and trusted.

Harman says people want to know this would not happen now.

People will want to know the inquiries are genuinely independent, she says.

She says other victims will worry that they will not be believed. They must be encouraged to speak out and to seek justice.

Updated at 4.27pm BST

3.55pm BST

Miller is replying to Wilson.

She says she thinks the BBC is taking these matters seriously.

As for a wider inquiry, she says a police investigation in ongoing. Victims will want to know that that investiation can go on unfettered.

3.54pm BST

Rob Wilson, the Conservative MP who tabled the question, says any hint of a cover-up would undermine trust in the BBC.

The BBC has not explained why the Newsnight programme was pulled. And it has not explained why evidence gathered, including some relating to two people still alive, has not been passed on to the police.

Does Miller think the BBC inquiries are sufficiently transparent?

Would a wider public inquiry be justified?

Does Miller think the BBC Trust has acted more as a cheerleader for the BBC?

3.52pm BST

Commons urgent question on Jimmy Savile

Maria Miller, the culture secretary, is responding to the urgent question now.

She says the allegations are horrifying.

The BBC was right to refer these matters to the police.

She says she spoke to the chairman of the BBC Trust on Friday. She is confident that the BBC, and the BBC Trust, are taking these allegations very seriously.

There are three inquiries.

The first will look at the Newsnight programme that was pulled.

The second will look at Savile himself.

And another review will look at other allegations of sexual harassment that have come to light at the BBC.

Updated at 3.55pm BST

3.48pm BST

Allegations against Jimmy Savile involving more than 60 victims are currently being investigated by Scotland Yard. Photograph: Murdo Macleod

We're about to have an urgent question in the Commons about Jimmy Savile. It will focus on the BBC inquiries.

Allocating the Liberal Democrats’ vote proportionally completely wipes them out at Westminster, as there are no Lib Dem seats so secure that the party can hold on with only 37% of its 2010 vote. This is an extreme, though not impossible, outcome: in 2011 the Liberal Democrats lost all nine of their constituency seats in Scotland, clinging on in parliament only through proportional top-up seats and votes from the Shetland and Orkney Isles. While a wipeout on this scale is fairly unlikely, it does provide a neat test of the relative effect of Lib Dem seat changes, as in this case all Lib Dem seats are awarded to someone else. The Conservatives do perform better in this situation, winning 33 Lib Dem seats to Labour’s 23 (and one for the SNP), but this is once again offset by Labour gains in Con-Lab marginals, where Ed Miliband’s party pick up 30 seats. Once again, Labour are the major winners from a Lib Dem collapse, although they would be faced with a very difficult hung parliament.

It does mean that the early Cameroon, socially liberal, cosmopolitan project is dead. Although I can see the logic of all this in terms of party management – your economic liberals remind me of Militant in Labour in the 1980s – this is still fraught with danger for Cameron. The extremists will want more and more. He sounds more authentic as the one nation patrician; the sink or swim language sounds shrill and unnatural. It seems to me last week you helped Cameron establish a new holding pattern. But he is holding off the crazies at the expense of his initial project and it is still tense and brittle.

As a shrewd and intelligent man – indeed, one of the shrewdest and most intelligent in British politics – [Salmond] must know that his mission is impossible, that in two years' time his country will vote to remain part of the United Kingdom, and that far from being achieved, independence will be deferred for at least a generation.

All YouGov’s evidence from the past four years is that independence is a minority passion north of the border. Even as the SNP was surging to victory last year, Scots told us by two to one that they wanted to remain within the UK. The SNP won because most Scots thought it had governed their country well, because they liked Salmond, and because they thought the Scottish Labour party was useless – not because they wanted to sever links with London.

Our latest Britain-wide poll for the Sunday Times suggests that independence remains a very hard sell. The key issue is whether Scotland would be economically stronger on its own. The Scots say no, by two to one. To be sure, there are just under 200 Scots in this sample, so the margin for error is large; but our voting figures are in line with other recent Scottish polls (Labour is back in a comfortable lead when people are asked how they would vote in a British general election), so there is no evidence that this particular sample under-represents the kind of people who think independence would be good for Scotland’s economy.

Gordon Brown is pure electoral antimatter. That he wants a role in the ‘better together’ pro-union campaign is the best news Alex Salmond has had in ages. Now that the question has been settled, the unionists need to make a quick and discreet executive decision: no Brown.

Here is some more reaction to today's agreement on the Scottish independence referendum.

From Iain McMillan, director of CBI Scotland

I am glad that agreement on the terms of the independence referendum has been reached by the UK and Scottish governments. We argued strongly that the referendum should be legally watertight and offer one question only about whether or not Scotland should become independent. That has been achieved today.

On balance, we would have preferred the referendum to take place sooner than the autumn of 2014 in order to remove the undoubted uncertainties for business that are arising from this lengthy process. But we accept that the current timetable will provide for a thorough exploration of the issues and questions involved in the independence debate.

From Patrick Harvie, a Glasgow MSP and co-convener of the Scottish Greens

This deal signals the start of the real debate, and a yes vote in October 2014 would signal the start of a new Scotland. The public appetite for more powers is plain to see and it is essential that both sides put forward a clear vision for Scotland’s future.

The Greens will set out a radical agenda for Scotland to take real control of our economy, supporting clean energy and meaningful jobs; to build welfare and taxation systems which address the root causes of poverty and inequality; and to develop a modern constitution reflecting the priorities of the 21st century.

We’re two years away from a vote and already many people are tired of the claims that independence will be either a utopia or a disaster. This once-in-a-generation choice needs more honesty than that, from both sides.

From Grant Costello, chair of the Scottish youth parliament

Lowering the voting age to 16 is a seminal moment on a historic day for Scottish democracy. For the first time 16 and 17-year-olds will be able to have their say at a national level on the way forward for Scotland. We believe it’s entirely right the young people who are the future of Scotland should have their say on Scotland’s constitutional future.

Updated at 3.43pm BST

3.14pm BST

In an interview earlier today Derek Mackay, the SNP local government minister in Scotland, was asked what that Scottish government would do if the Electoral Commission said it had to change its question. He replied: "We’ll cross that bridge when we come to it. I don’t believe they will reject the question but what we want is clarity on what the question is and we’re proposing the question: ‘Do you believe that Scotland should become an independent country?' That feels fairly straightforward to me."

The Scottish Labour party has said the SNP should commit itself to accepting the advice of the Electoral Commission. This is from the MSP Patricia Ferguson.

We know that when the SNP don't hear what they want, or get the answer they want, they simply throw aside contrary views and proceed as they wanted.

The referendum is too important for that. The SNP can't be a player and be a referee too. We need a clear commitment now that Alex Salmond will abide by what he is told by the Electoral Commission. Derek MacKay's refusal to be straight on this throws the SNP's approach into doubt, along with their motivations.

Scotland deserves and demands a fair and impartial referee to manage the referendum on our country's future.

Updated at 3.22pm BST

3.06pm BST

Q: Would Scotland have a written constitution?

Salmond says this would be a matter for debate in the first independence elections in 2016.

3.03pm BST

At the press conference Nicola Sturgeon, the Scottish deputy first minister, says the Edinburgh agreement does allow the Scottish parliament to extend the franchise to include all 16 and 17-year-olds. The Scottish government is confident this can be done, she says. Further details will be published in due course.

Updated at 3.22pm BST

3.02pm BST

Sky and BBC News have given up their live coverage of the press conference, but there is a live feed on the BBC website.

2.57pm BST

The Salmond press conference is still going.

Q: Do you think a no vote could end your career?

Salmond says his notes from his advisers told him not to look "triumphalist". He says that the Times (which asked the question) has written him off before.

2.56pm BST

The press conference is still going on.

Q: Could Scotland end up being the only part of the UK in the EU?

Salmond says it is up to the Conservatives to decide what they want to do about an EU referendum.

Q: What happened to the proposal for a second question?

Salmond says the SNP wanted to have just one question on the ballot paper. But the SNP wanted to keep the option of a second question open, so that the Scottish parliament could take a final decision. The SNP had to decide whether the agreement was worth it. Overall, it was.

Q: Can Scotland survive on its own economically?

Salmond says the figures for 2010-11 show Scotland in surplus.

He says the Scottish government wants more investment, but does not have the power to implement it. This will be one of the key arguments in the campaign, he says.

• He rejects the idea that he is ripping up the union flag. He says he wants Scotland to have a new relationship with England.

• He says he would like to debate Scotland's future with David Cameron.

• He says that, just as the SNP won the Scottish elections in 2011 despite originally being behind in the polls, the yes campaign can win the independence referendum.

• He says you win elections by winning the argument.

Updated at 2.55pm BST

2.41pm BST

The Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations has put out a statement saying it is disappointed there will not be a "devo max" question on the ballot paper. This is from Martin Sime, its chief executive.

A second question on more powers would win hands down and that’s why it won’t be asked. A strong majority of people want more powers short of independence but the referendum will deny them the chance to vote for the kind of change they want to see.

The politicians are back in charge and now we have two years of yes/no politics ahead of us whilst savage welfare cuts affect the poorest people across Scotland. This is not a recipe for successful democracy.

Updated at 2.45pm BST

2.36pm BST

The afternoon session of the Commons has started. Andrew Mitchell is in the chamber.

We've got two urgent questions in the Commons this afternoon, on a Spain/Gibraltar border dispute and Jimmy Savile, and three statements, on EU justice and home affairs, the west coast mainline and Scotland.

Updated at 2.34pm BST

2.19pm BST

And Cameron has posted a picture on Twitter too.

David Cameron (@David_Cameron)

Here's a picture of the historic Scottish Referendum agreement I signed today. I believe the UK is better together. twitter.com/David_Cameron/…

David Cameron has been giving interviews about the referendum agreement, which Alex Salmond is calling the Edinburgh agreement. Cameron said he would campaign personally for Scotland to stay in the UK.

I passionately believe in the United Kingdom. I don't just believe Scotland would be better off in the United Kingdom. I think the rest of the United Kingdom, England, Wales, Northern Ireland, is better off with Scotland in the United Kingdom. My argument will also be to English people and Welsh people and Northern Irish people, as well as to Scottish people.

Updated at 2.26pm BST

2.05pm BST

The Devo Plus group, which is campaigning for more devolution, has also put out a statement saying the parties opposed to devolution need to be more specific about the extra powers that could be given to Edinburgh in the future. This is from Jeremy Purvis, the Devo Plus leader (and a former Lib Dem MSP).

Since our launch in February, Labour, Liberal Democrats and Conservatives have indicated their openness to further powers, so it now appears that the real question in 2014 will be a straight question between independence and a form of Devo Plus.

For the result of the referendum to be decisive, those that do not support independence can now come together with Devo Plus for a long-term solution that provides a clear choice in the referendum and settles this for a generation.This means making this clear ahead of the vote and obtaining a consensus that is capable of delivery after the referendum.

We have a yes/no question for a vote on Scottish independence, and we can hardly contain our disappointment.

This referendum has become a bit of a game with both sides intent on rigging the deck. We now have a deal that suits the interests of a few dozen people in Edinburgh and Westminster and excludes a large section of the Scottish people who want more powers within the UK.

[In] every reputable poll since 1999 ‘more powers’ has almost always been the most favoured option with the two most recent polls in June by Ipsos Mori and a face-to-face survey by TNS showing more powers on around 40 points and ‘independence’ and ‘status quo’ at best in the high 20s.

Sullivan also said the no camp would have to explain whether Scotland would or would not get power powers if it voted against independence.

It’s now important that unionist parties make clear their intentions on what exactly a no vote would entail – with the options on more powers spelled out in law ahead of the 2014 vote.

They need to tell us if no means ‘no change’ or if no means ‘more powers’. If change is what’s on offer then it should be more than a politician’s promise: we need it enshrined in law before the vote.

Updated at 2.07pm BST

1.51pm BST

Number 10 has been tweeting what it describes as the three pillars of the referendum agreement.

No 10 Press Office(@Number10press)

1st #indyref pillar - transfer power to Scot Parliament to hold referendum based on question of #Scotland leaving UK or staying by end 2014

There will be an urgent question in the Commons on the BBC's inquiry into the Jimmy Savile affair.

1.17pm BST

Lunchtime summary

• David Cameron and Alex Salmond have begun talks in Edinburgh which will culminate in the signing of a deal paving the way for a referendum on Scottish independence in 2014. The meeting is due to finish soon, and the agreement will be published this afternoon. The SNP-led Scottish government has rejected claims that the decision to have just one question on the ballot paper represents a setback for Salmond.

• Cameron has described the aircraft carrier being built at Rosyth dockyard as “a UK success story”. He visited the yard, where workers are building HMS Queen Elizabeth, the Royal Navy’s largest warship, before going to Edinburgh to meet Salmond. As the Press Association reports, HMS Queen Elizabeth is the first of two 65,000-tonne ships under construction for the navy, and six shipyards around the UK are involved in building various parts of the vessel, which are ultimately being assembled in Fife. It is due to be completed by 2016, with HMS Prince of Wales following later. Around 200 workers gathered at the dry dock in Rosyth as Cameron told them it made him “really proud” to see the “incredible result of British and Scottish engineering”.

I think this is the success story that the whole of the United Kingdom can take great pride in. Just as the Olympics showed what we can do when we come together, you’re showing it right here in Rosyth with this incredible feat of engineering.

This has been and still is an immense task and, as soon as you have completed this aircraft carrier, the Prince of Wales will follow, and I am very proud to be standing here and to say thank you to you.

As was said at the Olympics, we want to make sure ‘Made in the United Kingdom’ is a badge we can be really proud of and I believe that, with these aircraft carriers, you here in Rosyth are making it absolutely clear that it is something we can all be really proud of.

• The Royal United Services Institute (RUSI), a defence thinktank, has published a report saying defending an independent Scotland would cost Scots £1.5bn a year less than they pay as part of the UK. Here’s an extract from its news release.

During the financial year 2010-2011 Scottish defence expenditure was £3.3bn, and over the last five years around 2.2% of Scotland’s economy on average has been spent on contributions to UK defence spending. However, report authors Crawford and Marsh suggest that, were Scotland to be independent, these figures could be ‘markedly lower’.

Taking the approach of ‘first considering the defence needs of Scotland and then describing the likely armed forces required to meet those needs’, the report outlines the idea of a ‘relatively modest’ independent Scottish defence structure with a ‘regional, rather than global focus’ comparable in size and strength with other small European states like Denmark, Norway and Ireland.

• A Liberal Democrat cabinet minister has dismissed suggestions that the Lib Dems could be persuaded to vote for the new boundary changes by the Conservatives agreeing to increase state funding for political parties. “I think that Nick Clegg and others have already made clear there is no prospect of any kind of deal like that,” said Michael Moore, the Scottish secretary. (See 9.43am.)

• Cameron has said the government has no plans to change the law on cannabis. He made the comment in a letter to the Commons home affairs committee, dated 21 September but released today to coincide with the publication of a report saying drug use should be decriminalised. Here’s an extract.

We are yet to be convinced that an alternative approach in the United Kingdom would have a greater impact on reducing the use and harms of drugs.

There are encouraging signs that our strategic approach continues to have a positive effect on the levels of drug use.

It is for this reason the government has no plans to change the current position on cannabis.

Cameron is visiting Rosyth for a reason, of course. It's about asking the Scots to think about how many aircraft carrier orders their dockyards will receive if Scotland votes for independence.

Updated at 12.31pm BST

12.23pm BST

10 Downing Street. Photograph: Andy Rain/EPA

Here are the main points from the Number 10 lobby briefing.

• Downing Street refused to rule out David Cameron taking part in a television debate with Alex Salmond. Asked about this, the prime minister's spokeswoman said: "I don't think the suggestion has been raised … There are no plans [for Cameron to take part in a debate]." I didn't get the impression that there was any chance of this happening (because Cameron knows that the no campaign has to be led by Scots like Alistair Darling, not an English prime minister, if it is going to succeed), but the fact that Number 10 did not quash the idea is attracting some interest.

• Number 10 insisted that allowing Scottish 16-year-olds to vote in the independence referendum would not lead to 16-year-olds being allowed to vote in general elections. "The government has no plans to change the voting age," the spokeswoman said. "This particular aspect is specific to the referendum question." But she did not have a particularly good answer to the question about why 16-year-olds should be allowed to vote in what the government says is "the most important decision [for Scotland] for 300 years" but not in more routine elections.

• Downing Street said the Scottish government was expected to follow the advice of the Electoral Commission in relation to the wording of the referendum question. "The Scottish government has undertaken to adhere to the same principles as Westminster, which takes the advice of the Electoral Commisison," the spokeswoman said.

• Number 10 said Cameron still had full confidence in Andrew Mitchell. One reason the briefing was so long and dull (see 11.50am) was because the questions about Mitchell lasted for a good 15 minutes, even though the response was almost always identical (what Mitchell said was wrong, he's apologised, the police officer has accepted it etc). But this exchange was nevertheless revealing in one sense; it showed that the Fleet Street wolf pack is still in hot pursuit. Maybe Jackie Ashley is right.

It's good to see that Sparrow's law – that the length of a Whitehall briefing is in inverse proportion to the quantity of new information it reveals – still applies. I'm just back from a particularly dull and thankless Number 10 lobby briefing. I'll post a summary (after I've applied jump leads to my head to re-stimulare mental activity).

Updated at 11.57am BST

10.54am BST

You can read all today's Guardian politics stories here. And all the politics stories filed yesterday, including some in today's paper, are here.

The “1922 committee” of Conservative MPs will meet to discuss any concerns they have over Mr Mitchell, and other issues, on Wednesday.

One senior MP said that a delegation from the committee would then meet with Mr Mitchell to relay details from the meeting.

“He is not a credible figure,” the MP said. “He is doing so much reputational damage to the party and to David Cameron.” However, it will be “difficult” for Cameron to sack Mr Mitchell after refusing to do so for so long.

“We are not happy with Andrew Mitchell. Locally, everybody is asking questions: ‘Why is this guy still in a job?’ The ’22 is there for backbenchers to raise anything and everything.

“There are a lot who are still talking about Andrew Mitchell and who are cross.”

Damian Green is pressing for police disciplinary hearings to be opened to the public. “There is a need to increase public confidence through greater professionalism, greater transparency and greater accountability,” he said. Asked whether the proposals applied to all hearings, he said: “It goes across the board. So whether Independent Police Complaints Commission hearings should be more often in public is one issue that we will be considering.”

Bad idea number three is that Tory unpopularity can be explained by a reputation for sexism, racism and homophobia or harsh views towards criminals and immigrants. Like the previous false ideas, it has led Tory strategists in wrong directions. Asked to name three things that prevent them from voting Conservative, only 1 to 2 per cent of voters mention views on women, ethnic minorities or gay people. In a YouGov survey for ConservativeHome, only 2 per cent cite tough policies on crime or immigration. In contrast, 28 per cent blame Tory attitudes towards the public services. The top barrier (41 per cent) is a perception that it’s a “party for the rich”.

For years Tory strategists have obsessed about the wrong problems. While it’s vital to rid the party of hateful views towards any minorities, the elephant in the room has always been class and empathy. Tory modernisation should have focused on reassuring blue-collar and northern Britain. Belatedly Team Cameron has got the message. The “striver” word was rarely off Tory tongues last week.

I'm off to the Number 10 lobby briefing now. I will post again after 11.30am.

Updated at 11.01am BST

10.46am BST

And my colleague Severin Carrell has also sent me a post on the way the Scottish papers are reporting the referendum deal.

The front pages of today's Scottish newspapers betray some ambivalence about the Cameron-Salmond meeting to sign the referendum deal: the tabloids imply there isn't much new to say, with the Labour-supporting Record putting nothing about the meeting on its front page. It splashes instead on “Giant wave kills angler”.

The Scottish edition of the Sun, which backs Salmond's government but reserves judgment on independence, splashes again on Jimmy Savile, offering a short two paragraphs under the masthead: “Alex indy deal vow”.

The mid-market Daily Express is studiedly neutral: its splash says “Scots have a simple choice” while the Daily Mail is unequivocal in its unionist sympathies, stating: “Battle for our future begins today” with a secondary headline stating: “Fight to save the union starts in earnest.”

The Times' Scottish edition too suggests we know the essential details of today's deal. It makes no reference to the talks at all on its front page, splashing instead on calls for drug decriminalisation.

More on the Scottish independence referendum, and the extension of the franchise to include 16-year-olds. My colleague Severin Carrell has sent me this.

The Herald has offered a tantalising but unsupported story that the Scottish government has solved a conundrum on how to ensure all 16-year-olds will get the vote in the 2014 referendum.

One of the headline demands by Alex Salmond, today's deal with Cameron will confirm that the Scottish parliament will be able to extend the vote to 16 and 17-year-olds. This isn't entirely exceptional: UK referendum law allows the organisation holding that plebiscite to define the electorate for the vote.

While a politically disastrous option, Cameron could have blocked that by explicitly banning it in the parliamentary order, known as a section 30 order, which will now be passed by Westminster to give Holyrood the temporary power to stage the 2014 referendum under today's deal.

Electoral reform groups, including the Scottish youth parliament, fear that proposal is not quite so simple to fulfil: the current electoral system only includes teenagers older than 16 years and 10 months – the so-called attainers who are registered in advance of their 18th birthdays.

The Herald reports just this: "There have been predictions this could leave the poll open to a legal challenge, but a Scottish government source told the Herald last night: "A mechanism has been found to ensure the franchise will go beyond the attainers. It will allow the Scottish parliament to fix this."'

Hopefully Salmond can expand on that at a press conference later today.

Updated at 10.46am BST

10.38am BST

Some of the stories previewing today's consultation from IPSA about MPs' pay suggested that regional pay rates could be introduced.

Sadly, having skimmed the consultation paper (pdf), it is fairly clear this will never happen. Here's what the regional pay section actually says.

Recently the government has been exploring the idea of introducing regional pay for civil servants and others working in the public sector, based on the average earnings and the economy in particular geographical areas. Those in favour of regional pay believe that pay for public servants, which is generally set at a national level, should be more in line with private sector businesses which set pay in accordance with their local labour market.

The pay of MPs does not currently reflect regional variations in, for example, the cost of living and working in a particular constituency, although there is one provision in the MPs’ Scheme of Business Costs and Expenses, the London Area Living Payment, which allows London Area MPs to claim for a taxable benefit to assist with the additional costs of living in or of commuting regularly to the London Area. This could be considered a form of London weighting, a common feature of remuneration in other jobs.

Given that most MPs live and work in London for a large part of the week when parliament is sitting, the arguments advanced for regional pay may not apply.

I've inserted the bold because this is the sentence that seems to kill the proposal.

Sir Ian Kennedy, the IPSA chairman, says IPSA has launched a consultation with a view to coming up with final proposals for MPs' pay and pensions by late 2013, with the new measures coming into force after 2015.

The issue of how we pay our MPs is not an easy one to resolve – it has been grappled with for generations.

The opportunity we now have is very different. MPs’ self regulation of their financial affairs is over. For the first time an independent body – IPSA – will decide, but not before we ask the public what they think.

In the past this issue has been ducked, dodged or fudged to meet the political whim of the moment. Clearly that is not right. IPSA’s approach is different. We want a considered, public debate where we hear as broad a range of views as possible supported by all the evidence which is available.

This is an historic opportunity and a chance for everyone to influence where we go next. I encourage people to give it some thought – what do we expect from our MPs and what is a fair reward for the job? If you’ve got a view, get involved – email us, tweet us, visit our website. We want to know what you think.

Senior Conservatives are plotting an audacious “cash-for-seats” offer to Nick Clegg, where the Liberal Democrat leader would back a Conservative-friendly Commons boundary review in exchange for millions in state funding for his party.

Grant Shapps, Tory chairman, said on Sunday he had not “given up hope” of winning Mr Clegg’s support for the boundary review, which could give David Cameron 15-20 extra seats at the next election.

Although Mr Shapps denied on the BBC’s Sunday Politics that talks were under way, senior Tory figures have told the Financial Times that they believe the cash-strapped Lib Dems would be susceptible to the offer.

“They are basically out of money,” one minister said. Another minister confirmed that the idea of buying off the Lib Dems with public money was being actively pursued: “There is a plot,” the minister said.

But Michael Moore, the Lib Dem Scottish secretary, shot down the idea on the Today programme.

I think that Nick Clegg and others have already made clear there is no prospect of any kind of deal like that. When the Conservatives turned their backs on House of Lords reform, we made clear that we could no longer support the Boundary Commission. Nothing has changed about that.

Updated at 10.08am BST

9.28am BST

David Torrance, the journalist and author of a biography of Alex Salmond, has been tweeting about the independence referendum deal.

In fact, the whole negotiation process – publicly and privately – has been surprisingly courteous, not least in the usually toxic context of Scottish politics. Bruce Crawford, who handled most of the talks until Nicola Sturgeon took over a few weeks ago, was genuinely liked and respected by his UK government counterparts. The deputy first minister has also impressed London with her constructive attitude.

Ironically, this process demonstrates just how well the Scottish and UK governments can work together.

Ruth Davidson, the leader of the Scottish Conservatives, told Radio 5 Live this morning that there was not a big difference between the SNP and the no campaigners in terms of what the question in the independence referendum should be. I've taken the quote from PoliticsHome.

We organised a group of independent experts, including Professor Ron Gould from Canada, and their proposal was that ‘Scotland should become an independent nation?’ With a box marked ‘I agree’ and ‘I do not agree’, so that’s one of the questions in the mix.

But the Scottish government came forward with its own preferred question which it's consulting on, which I believe is ‘do you agree that Scotland is an independent country?’ with 'yes, no'.

So we aren’t a million miles apart, but the agreement that is being signed today has written into it that the Electoral Commission will oversee and advise on the question and to ignore the commission’s advice would undermine the referendum’s credibility.

Michael Moore, the Lib Dem Scottish secretary, has also been giving interviews this morning. He said he thought the people of Scotland would reject independence.

The opportunities in continuing to be part of the United Kingdom are strong. Our place in the world – we have much more clout as part of the UK at the top table at the United Nations and Nato, in the European Union, we've got much greater security as part of an economy, the fourth largest defence spender in the world, lots of jobs dependent on that.

I think these are the issues that people are going to focus on and that will be much more powerful than an uncertain prospect. What we've not had so far is anybody spelling out what independence will look like, lots of risks attached to it which have not yet been thought through by the SNP.

Updated at 9.17am BST

9.05am BST

In the comments LittleNigel57 has come up with an ingenious way of linking the Scotland story with the Andrew Mitchell story.

Can we make a point of refering to the Referendum as a "Plebiscite"? ;o)

Nicola Sturgeon, Scotland's deputy first minister, rejected suggestions that Alex Salmond had been outmanoeuvred by David Cameron (see 8.53am) when she was on the Today programme a few minutes ago.

That's not how I see it. We never said that we wanted a second question on the ballot paper. What we did say was that that option should not be ruled out prematurely. It would have been better left to the Scottish parliament to decide that. But in any negotiation there has to be compromise. Both sides have compromised. Overall, I'm very satisfied that we have a deal that guarantees a referendum made in Scotland. If you cast your mind back to January this year, David Cameron was talking about dictating the terms of a referendum, the timing, the wording of the question, the franchise. All of these things are now going to be determined by the Scottish parliament. I think that's right and proper.

8.53am BST

Today's Cameron/Salmond deal begs the question "who won?" Cameron originally wanted an early referendum, and he was not keen on allowing 16-year-olds to vote, and he has had to give way on both these issues. But Salmond has had to drop the idea of having a second "devo max" question on the ballot paper as a fall-back.

Right from the off, Cameron has outmanoeuvred Salmond. The contest began in May last year, when the SNP won a staggering victory in the Scottish elections, and promised to hold a referendum on independence. Eight months on, with no sign of any move from Salmond, Cameron staged a pre-emptive strike. In January, with Scotland’s politicians still recovering from their New Year festivities, the prime minister told the BBC’s Andrew Marr Show that Salmond didn’t have the power to hold a legal referendum – only Westminster could do that.

This threat to take charge of the vote caused consternation within the SNP, and resulted in three days of feverish activity among Salmond’s officials, who at last published their own proposals for a vote, to be held in autumn 2014. It was accompanied by a diatribe from the party leader accusing Cameron of “interfering in Scotland’s internal affairs”. Since then, both sides have indulged in, first, a lengthy bout of name-calling, and then an even longer series of meetings during which the conditions for the referendum were finally thrashed out.

It is Cameron, however, who goes into today’s final summit having won virtually every round.

Scotland’s two governments have come together to deliver a referendum which will be legal, fair and decisive. This marks the beginning of an important chapter in Scotland’s story and allows the real debate to begin.

It paves the way so that the biggest question of all can be settled: a separate Scotland or a United Kingdom? I will be making a very positive argument for our United Kingdom.

It is now up to the people of Scotland to make that historic decision. The very future of Scotland depends on their verdict. It is that important. This agreement delivers the people’s referendum.

I’ll be covering the meeting, and its implications, throughout the day.

But it’s not just Scotland. The Commons is sitting again after the party conference recess and there are some other chunky announcments in the diary. Here’s the agenda.

As usual, I'll also be covering all the breaking political news as well as looking at the papers and bringing you the best politics from the web. I'll post a lunchtime summary at around 1pm and another in the afternoon.

The prime minister, David Cameron, and the Scottish first minister, Alex Salmond, sign a deal, dubbed the Edinburgh agreement, giving the Scottish government the power to hold a referendum on independence from the UK